HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-12-20 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment was held Monday, December 20, 2004 at
3:45 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Items Discussed Action Taken
BOA 04-1339 (ZWEIG/HUDGINS, 445)
Page 2
BOA 04-1340 (JANET DAVIS, 563)
Page 14
Members Present
Michael Green
Robert Kohler
Joanne Olszewski
James Kunzelmann
Bob Nickle
Sherree Alt
Michael Andrews
Modified/Approved
Approved
Members Absent
Staff Present Staff Absent
Suzanne Morgan Renee Thomas
Leif Olson
David Whitaker
Board of Adjustment
December 20, 2004
Page 2
BOA 04-1339 (ZWEIG/HUDGINS, 445): Submitted by GARTH HUDGINS for
property located at 59 EAST PROSPECT STREET. The property is zoned R -O,
RESIDENTIAL OFFICE and contains approximately 0.44 acres. The request is for
reduced front, side, and rear setbacks to allow for a new garage, an addition to the
existing structure, and an addition to the existing garage.
Andrews: We will call the December 20, 2004 meeting of the Board of Adjustments
to order please. The first item on our agenda is the approval of the
minutes from the November 86 meeting. Does anyone have any changes
or corrections to make? Hearing none, we will get those entered into the
record please. The next item of new business is BOA 04-1339 submitted
by Garth Hudgins for property located at 59 E. Prospect Street. The
property is zoned R -O and contains approximately .44 acres. The request
is for reduced front, side and rear setback to allow for a new garage, an
addition to the existing structure and an addition to the existing garage.
Staff, will you give us the report on this please?
Olson: Sure. This subject property is located at 59 E. Prospect Street. Currently
there is a single family home approximately 3,166 sq.ft. located on the
property which is a part of Lot 1 and 2 of A.L. Trents Revised Plat to the
City Park addition. This lot does comply with the R -O zoning district in
terms of minimum square footage and existing frontage onto Prospect
Street. The applicant is requesting multiple variances from the existing
setbacks for this property in order to construct a new garage, an addition to
the home and an addition to the existing garage. The specific request is
for a 10' variance request for the front or north property line resulting in a
20' setback. A 4' variance of the side or east property line resulting in a
6' setback and a 16' variance for the rear or south setback resulting in a 9'
setback and then a variance of 5' for the side or west setback for the
existing garage resulting in a 10' setback. This will become apparent
when we get further along and look at the site plan in terms of what their
specific dimensional request is for a variance. The surrounding land use is
primarily residential single family and residential office. To the west there
is some RMF -24 zoning. Staff recommends approval for the variance
request that would address the existing garage addition and the existing
home because these structures are existing and non -conforming staff
would recommend denial of the variance requests for the new garage
structure and the addition to the existing home. Staff feels that there is
more than adequate space on this lot for the applicants to construct these
structures within the setback requirements. Therefore, meeting the zoning
ordinances adopted by the city. For the special conditions, the findings I
will just highlight the pertinent ones here. Staff finds that there are no
special conditions or circumstances existing which are peculiar to the land
or the structure that are not applicable to surrounding properties and
buildings in the same district. Staff finds that the variance request to allow
for the addition to the existing home does not sufficiently demonstrate
Board of Adjustment
December 20, 2004
Page 3
special conditions or circumstances. Literal interpretation of the zoning
regulations allow for the continued existence of the structure as non-
conforming. Bringing the home and existing garage into compliance
would permit the applicant to make the additions without further
variances. If you have any questions I would be glad to answer those for
you. I believe a representative is here for the applicant so they can speak
to each of the variances more directly.
Hudgins: I'm Garth Hudgins. Thank you for coming today. I have one more
amendment to the file. This is the last remaining neighbor who has given
approval to the variance requests on their behalf. Mr. Duvall is the
neighbor to the west of the property. I explained to him over the phone
what was going on and he understood what was going on and didn't
oppose any of our variance request. This site has a very interesting
situation. First, the structure was built in 1934. If you have seen it, it is a
native stone rock veneer home, two story. It is very interesting in it's
architectural detailing. What my client plans on doing is restoring it and
continuing that same theme with the new additions to the home. Again, it
was constructed in 1934 and it hasn't been updated with the current
amenities and the addition to the south is merely a bathroom addition. We
will go over each variance request independently so it won't get too
confusing. Starting with that bathroom addition to the south, the neighbor
is the McKinney Law Firm, a business. The property just to the south is a
view of the parking lot, a black top pavement parking lot that probably
houses about 30 cars during the day. It is fully wooded between those two
adjoining properties so the visual barrier shouldn't be altered any. The
landscaping and the current adult trees, it is the main goal to keep them all.
We want to have the least amount of impact that we can. The addition to
the south is the most economic way of adding onto the structure.
Rooflines and things like that taking effect. The owner would also like to
leave the option and possibility of a swimming pool for his children in the
backyard. If we take the addition to the west that would really limit that
ability. The new garage and art studio, the client's wife is an artist and she
is going to house her office and studio in that area. This structure is
designed to do a few things. One of it's major components would be to
act as a sound barrier between College, which is a busy road. I do not
know the traffic count on that but I would estimate that it is more than
40,000 vehicles per day. There is a huge amount of noise traveling from
that road. Also, the house faces the east currently and as city staff
mentioned, the property was at some point sold out and now the house
needs to face Prospect to the north. With the garage and landscaping we
are going to try to change this house to make it a north facing entry. The
existing garage is a structure that was added on after the original
construction of the home. It wasn't tied in very well. It is a flat roof, very
non -conforming to the original design of the house. We would like the
opportunity to update it, renovate it and add a second story to it that would
Board of Adjustment
December 20, 2004
Page 4
act as an office. The owner is a professor at the University and also the
existing garage was built probably with not the most care. The foundation
has already cracked, the walls are cracking and if we were to try to put a
second story on that we would probably be buying trouble. We would
need extensive renovation there. We would like approval to just tear
down and rebuild in the exact same footprint of the current structure. Are
there any questions?
Olszewski: I have one. There is a wooden fence on the west side correct?
Hudgins: Yes.
Olszewski: Is that the property line?
Hudgins: I can't confirm that it is on the property line but yes, I believe it is.
Olszewski: In front along that west line there is a stake in front of it, what is that?
Hudgins: That would probably be the property pin corner.
Olszewski: It would almost seem like that fence is over a little bit.
Hudgins: I don't know where the other property pin is, I didn't stake the lot
personally. I do not know whether or not the fence is on the property line
or not.
Olszewski: Then there is the chain link fence back there too. That is not on a line is
it?
Hudgins: I don't believe so. That was all done previously. The owner has never
occupied the property yet.
Olson: There was an alley, it is a vacated alley that came up along this western
property line that has been vacated. Typically when an alley is vacated
one half will go to each property owner on each adjoining side so that may
be why there is some discrepancy as to where fences are located along that
line there.
Olszewski: That makes more sense.
Hudgins: I do know that the owner does plan on building a new stockade fence and
in doing so we would definitely be putting a fence on the property line.
Green: Just to clarify here, the recommendation is to approve only the non-
conforming parts right?
Board of Adjustment
December 20,
Page 5
Olson:
Kohler:
Olson:
Kohler:
Olson:
Green:
Olson:
Green:
Olszewski:
Kohler:
Olson:
Olszewski:
Hudgins:
Nickle:
2004
If you will notice on the south side the home that is existing extends over
that 25' rear setback so staff would recommend approval to bring that into
conformity. However, not that addition. Then the existing garage, if it is
to be totally removed, razed, then staff would recommend that when it is
rebuilt that it be shifted over to the east approximately 5' to bring it into
conformity.
This request has nothing to do with razing and rebuilding. This is strictly
to allow an existing non -conforming structure right?
There are multiple requests. If the existing garage is removed, as it is right
now it is non -conforming and could remain. Once they remove it then
they have to conform.
Let's not even talk about that because that is not what is being requested.
As I understand it, that is what is being requested. They are going to
remove that and rebuild it. To rebuild it in the same position as it exists
now would require a variance.
This new garage addition as well as the addition to the south part of the
house, the applicant has agreed that that is still part of their request, is that
right? I'm kind of confused as to what exactly we are considering. Does
the applicant agree with the staff's recommendation on just trying to get a
variance on the non -conforming parts of this and then they are going to
work out some other design so they don't have to get the addition?
All of these are before you.
Ok, we will take them one at a time then.
With the existing garage, it is non -conforming where it is. You are
proposing to tear it down and rebuild it there but make it even taller so it
would be two stories so it would be even more non -conforming than it is
now. If it was two story it would have to be over even further wouldn't it?
Just to make it conforming you would have to move it over.
To make it conforming you would have to move it over.
It would seem like the variance would be more if it were two story.
It would be a story and a half.
Is there a side setback difference on a one or two story house?
Board of Adjustment
December 20, 2004
Page 6
Olson: It depends on the zoning district.
Nickle: In commercial it does but I don't know about R -O.
Olson: This is RMF -24 to the west. In an R -O zoning district your side setback
when contiguous to a residential district is 15'. They showed this at 15'
and then you notice there is a hand drawn line dashed, this drawing wasn't
to scale so this hand drawn line that I put in here is actually where that
dimension falls. It is still 5'.
Nickle: Do we know whether or not his current property line is drawn on here?
Does that include or not include the vacated alley portion?
Olson: I don't know.
Nickle: I think that is real significant. That is 7 Yz feet if we assume that it gets
split between those two properties.
Olson: I assume that with this drawing, the person that drew this researched and
had that dimension included.
Olszewski: It would be my guess it is in there because that stake is over so far.
Nickle: On the next page, if you are looking at that, you see that right there and
they talk about a vacated 15' alley and it looks like that is added to it
there. I guess that is my question. Does this drawing include that? I don't
know.
Hudgins: I have a survey by Doug Hemingway. His survey shows that the property
line is centered right down the vacated alley. This drawing that you are
looking at that I provided the property line is down the middle of the
vacated alley way.
Kohler: So 7 /' on the other side of the property line is the alley?
Olson: The drawing that you are looking at on page 1.11 appears to match up
with the survey on page 1.12.
Alt: So we are still speaking about a 5' encroachment.
Kohler: It is really out of scale. If this is 5' and that whole thing is 7 %' this would
read that this might be closer to 15'.
Hudgins: I don't know why.
Board of Adjustment
December 20,
Page 7
Olson:
Nickle:
Hudgins:
Nickle:
Hudgins:
Nickle:
Kohler:
Hudgins:
Olszewski:
Hudgins:
Olszewski:
2004
This 15' side setback is actually shown at 12' if you put a scale to it so
that line isn't right. It is labeled as 15' but it is drawn at 12'.
On your new garage, what is the reason that it can't fall within the
appropriate setbacks? It looks like there is room enough right here to slide
it back and to the west a little bit . What is the reasoning there?
I agree with that. There is this chiropractic clinic just to the east there.
There is a beautiful view of it's rooftop. They are just trying to create a
barrier between the house and the commercial properties around it. We
have only got so much land there to work with and it would be beneficial
that the structure is pushed as far away as possible to leave what yard will
be left.
You mentioned before you are trying to preserve yard on the west line for
some swimming pool or something but I don't see this.
The front would be the only yard we would have left.
You have got some yard area to the east because you are trying to reorient
the house to front on Prospect so you have still got a fair amount of yard
on the east side it looks like to me. I just don't quite understand the
reason, most people want the garage a little closer to the house rather than
further away.
Plus if that is changing to where Prospect is now the front of the house
you would think that moving the garage back would help that al ttle bit.
We are trying to keep it open between the new garage, the existing garage,
the other alternative is to do a four car garage where the existing garage
sets that comes across the very front. There is a 60' magnolia tree right
there in the middle of that and we would love to keep it there. When you
look at that, have you all seen the site? That is one of the major reasons
why we are doing what we are doing.
What is the distance between your proposed garage and the chiropractor's
office?
It is not very far. Their setback off that property line I bet it is not more
than 10'. From the garage to their building there is probably 25' maybe.
The way this property sets with the back addition it seems like they are so
far away from the way it drops down. The whole idea sometimes is about
safety. If a fire was in one place would it jump to the other? I just
wondered it positioning it that close is going to be problematic for you. I
would certainly understand why you would want to do something to sound
Board of Adjustment
December 20, 2004
Page 8
proof it. The difference in sound on the inside, I took the liberty of going
through the gate, it is incredible. I also don't understand why you can't
come back with a variance that meets the bulk.
Hudgins: We can give and take. I'm willing to do what we can.
Kohler: If we are going to compromise I wouldn't be opposed to move that new
garage back and still give them the side setback variance and just get it
behind that front setback line and then that may give you an opportunity
when you rebuild the other garage to line it up on the build to line and on
the front setback line and sort of create a re -master plan of the whole thing
and still give you the openness that you want because of that big tree,
which I think is a logical need to remain open and so that would justify the
east side setback variance and then just move that back south. I would
support that.
Olszewski: I would also support you doing something with that existing garage. It
doesn't fit. That is a beautiful house and the garage really takes away
from it. Plus, the roof is falling down. I'm with Bob that that garage
could be pulled back and I think you probably could even get more sound
barrier.
Green:
You really can't count on sound barrier for a diffraction around something
like that. You are going to see some improvement, it is not going to
reduce the noise that much.
Hudgins: We anticipate on doing a stockade fence across that east side to separate
the property from the chiropractic clinic so we don't have to view the
rooftop of that. That would again help with the south barrier. We would
increase the vegetation along that property line as well. Mass is the only
way to stop sound and of course, we don't want to build all the way across
the front of that but every little bit will help.
Green: Moving the garage back without moving it over to the west is probably
going to give you more open area in there than you have now.
Kohler: How about the existing garage? That could be re-sited to line up with the
new garage maybe, you could push it forward a little bit. Is that part of the
plan to build on the existing foundation?
Hudgins: No, the existing foundation has failed. It is not suitable.
Kohler: So you would have to rebuild the foundation anyway so the location of
that new foundation, there is nothing.
Board of Adjustment
December 20,
Page 9
Hudgins:
Kohler:
Hudgins:
Kohler:
Nickle:
Hudgins:
Olson:
Hudgins:
Nickle:
Kohler:
Green:
Kohler:
Olson:
Andrews:
2004
It ties in really nice to the side of this. There is an arched entry you go
through and then it arches into the house and that whole wall lines up with
the wall of the west side of the house and that is a real nice connection
there.
If you were to leave that east line of the existing garage aligned as it is
with that part of the house and then brought the west side of the garage
into compliance with a new structure would that enable two cars in the
garage?
Not unless they are two small cars. It is a pretty small garage as it is.
If you took 5' out of the width you wouldn't be able to fit two cars in
there. It would be tight.
If you had a single door opening you could do it. On the existing right
now there are two with a separation in the middle. If you just put a regular
two car garage in there, I don't see why they couldn't fit that.
I don't think that garage is any more than 20' wide.
If you came over 5' to get it to fit within the setback it would leave you
20'right there.
That is 20' to the outside wall and these are 1' thick currently.
But you are tearing those down. To me that is a non -issue.
I'm just saying if you kept the east side of that garage in line with the
house which is a desirable thing to do. In other words, if you he didn't
move that line anymore to the east, you cannot afford to take 5' out of the
west and still get two cars in there.
I wouldn't want us to get into the details of designing the project for him.
Really, I don't have a problem with staff's recommendation on the
existing non -conforming structures including the existing garage that is
going to be replaced with the same setbacks. They can work out those
details.
Staff is recommending to approve that?
No.
No one has any objection to the existing structures as they sit right now.
The new garage, we are saying a 6' side variance but no variance on the
front. On the existing garage that we give them a 5' variance on the side
Board of Adjustment
December 20, 2004
Page 10
setback to allow them to raze the current structure and rebuild it where it
sits.
Kohler: He is not going to have to go through this again with a new structure. We
are allowing that right now, a new structure?
Andrews: That is what I'm hearing us talk about.
Whitaker: That is what is being requested.
Nickle: If we pass that it becomes a moot point doesn't it David about whether or
not he decides to replace it?
Whitaker: Yes. If you approved it he then could do whatever he pleases or not.
Nickle: That just changes the setback.
Andrews: It has to make sure it is not for the existing garage and then the variance
goes away.
Whitaker: If you word it as the existing then he would have to come back and ask for
a variance for the new structure.
Kohler: Right now there are some conditions here that say no expansion to the
structure.
Olson: It depends, when we talked a couple of weeks ago there was some
indecision on the applicant's part as to whether they would totally raze
that garage or if it was structurally sound enough that they could
rehabilitate it and do what they wanted with it where it sits. Now I think
we know that it would come down.
Hudgins: We have investigated it a lot more and we have learned that the foundation
has failed, the rock wall would probably crumble if we were to try to do
anything around it. It just wasn't a safe environment to try to build on top
of it. I wouldn't want the liability.
Kohler: Should we just address that in a condition?
Andrews: We haven't addressed the addition to the south. That is for an additional
bathroom.
Hudgins: This 3,000 sq.ft. house has two bathrooms. You all have been in the older
homes with the claw tub and the single hot and cold water faucets. They
don't mix. We are trying to update it to current amenities. The master
bedroom is in that back corner and it has two windows that face the south.
Board of Adjustment
December 20, 2004
Page 11
It would be a simple addition to add on to that point right there, use the
two windows as access points into this new addition. The roofline is a
gable that runs to that point, it is an easy tie on to continue out. The
commercial property, the law office that is directly to the south sits further
to the west and the parking lot is what this addition will be directly facing.
Those pictures show the parking lot and the retaining wall. Again, it is
heavily vegetation. The options are why can't we go east or west. West
there is a bedroom right beside it that you see some stairs coming out of
the structure to the east and that is also going to the front. There is not a
good way of connecting it that way and then simply to the west is desired
for the swimming pool and enough room for the outdoor environment.
You have already picked up on it. It is more romantic in the back of the
house than it is in the front. Any space that we can save in the back is a
bonus.
Andrews: You are requesting a 16' variance resulting in a 9' setback for that?
Hudgins: Since this property changed frontage the side setback has become a rear.
We didn't create the problem, we are just trying to live with it.
Nickle: I didn't go to the back yard but I understand that you are saying that the
roof is sloping to the east and the west and therefore, it would be more
difficult to put an addition on the east or the west without changing the
roofline significantly is that what you are saying?
Hudgins: It would be a harder tie in. Economically this is the more feasible way.
Green: It would be a dormer type connection.
Hudgins: It would be extending the gable. If we went to the west it would be a
saddle, we would have to saddle onto the roof. \
Kohler: How about going to the east?
Hudgins: To the east there is a bedroom that separates. This is the master bedroom.
There is a bedroom separation there.
Green: Commercial property actually adjoining the site there and all the other
constraints there I would consider that to be a hardship and don't think I
would have a problem with that.
Hudgins: I received a letter of approval from the McKinney Law Firm. I explained
to them in depth what we were wanting to do. They didn't have any
problem with it. When you look at their situation and their parking lot and
the retaining wall that they have already created. If you are worried about
Board of Adjustment
December 20, 2004
Page 12
your neighbor the foreseeable expansion or something like that may be
pretty limited to them.
Nickle: It is a pretty good drop off there. It is not like you are interfering on
somebody else's backyard.
Hudgins: I bet there is a 10' or 12' drop.
Olson: A copy of that letter is in your packet.
Kohler: This little hand out that you just gave us, this is to the west. It does
address this letter the new garage and the existing garage, he does not
address the addition to the main house.
Hudgins: It didn't adjoin his property line so it wasn't effecting him.
Kohler: Neither did the new garage but he addressed it. I was just curious. It
doesn't mean that he doesn't approve it right?
Hudgins: In our conversation I explained each variance and he was only concerned
with the two. I'm sure because he travels Prospect.
Kohler: As a matter of procedure you all did get letters from adjacent property
owners, were all of them positive?
Olson: Yes, they have all been positive.
Kohler: This is the only contact you have had with this property owner to the west
right?
Olson:
Alt:
Olson:
Yes.
Do we need to go over these individually?
Yes, I think it would be easier for the record if we made a motion on these
one at a time.
Andrews: Before someone makes a motion I need to ask if there is anyone in the
audience who would like to address this issue? Seeing none, I will bring it
back to the Board. I will entertain a motion.
Green:
I think we could probably word a fairly simple motion to take up all of
these issues. I will move that we approve the west setback variance of 5',
the east setback variance.
Board of Adjustment
December 20,
Page 13
Olszewski:
Green:
Olszewski:
Nickle:
Green:
Olszewski:
Green:
Whitaker:
Andrews:
Nickle:
Olson:
Kohler:
Green:
Olson:
Green:
Nickle:
Alt:
2004
Is the west setback variance a setback for the existing garage only or an
existing garage and if they decide to tear it down?
It is a variance request for the property.
So that covers if they tear it down and rebuilds with two stories, it doesn't
make any difference.
So you are saying the entire west setback line north/south or just back to
the existing garage, just for clarification.
I was going to take the east, west, and south and not grant one on the
north. I thought that would be simple.
They can rebuild it in that same spot?
Right.
That can be one of your conditions.
In the same footprint. The variance is for a 5' variance for the existing
footprint of the structure.
That would prevent the necessity of coming back for that footprint.
If they were to put in a swimming pool and want to put a pool house over
that west side over that setback further back in the yard it is going to be
another issue. It is not going to be the entire line down that property line.
We can say as a condition either the existing or a new building with the
same footprint.
The request here says a 4' variance on the east side and a 5' variance on
the west side, is that correct?
On the east side, if you approve where that new garage is placed it is a 6'
setback which means it is a 4' variance.
Let me try this again. I move that we approve the request with the west
setback for a variance of 5' on the west within the footprint of the existing
garage and that we approve a variance of 4' setback on the east side and
that we approve a 16' variance for the rear, south setback.
For this deal right here, you are not talking about all the way across?
Just for the new addition.
Board of Adjustment
December 20, 2004
Page 14
Green: Within the footprint of the addition as shown.
Olszewski: And for the house.
Green: Yes, for the existing structures and new in the same footprint.
Olson: The standard conditions for approval that we usually apply is no
expansion of the existing structure without Board of Adjustment approval
shall occur. That just covers any future additions, pool house for example.
That second one there, I don't think we need to use. You can strike that
because you have granted the variance for the footprint for the existing
garage.
Green: My motion should also include staff's recommendation number one.
Kunzelmann: Second.
Andrews: Are there any further questions?
Hudgins: We covered all the directions except north and that is not included?
Andrews: Right, there is no variance there.
Hudgins: I think the applicant can live with that. I appreciate that.
Andrews: Are there any further questions? Will you call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve BOA 04-1339 was
approved by a vote of 7-0-0.
Board of Adjustment
December 20, 2004
Page 15
BOA 04-1340 (JANET DAVIS, 563): Submitted by JANET DAVIS for property located
at 1005 WOOD AVENUE. The property is zoned RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24
UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.26 acres. The request is for a reduced side
setback to accommodate a new carport.
Andrews: We will go to the next item on our agenda which is BOA 04-1340
submitted by Janet Davis for property located at 1005 Wood Avenue. The
property is zoned RMF -24, Residential Multi -Family and contains
approximately .26 acres. The request is for a side setback of 5'. Would
staff like to give us some input please?
Olson: This property is located at 1005 Wood Avenue. Currently there is a 1,380
sq.ft. single family home located on the property, which is Lot 1 of the
East gate Addition. The lot consists of approximately 11,250 sq.ft. which
complies with the minimum allowable lot area in the RMF -24 zoning
district for a single family home which is 6,000 sq.ft. Additionally, it does
have adequate frontage onto Wood Avenue, 75'. The applicant requests a
variance for the addition of a carport structure which will encroach upon
the 8' building setback line so the request is for a side setback variance of
3' resulting in a 5' setback along the south side property line. The
applicant previously requested a variance to locate this carport on the front
of the home which would have encroached into the front building setback.
Staff recommended denial of that request and then when the meeting was
rescheduled the applicant has come back and has changed their request to
put it on the side of the house where it will line up more directly with the
front of the house and therefore, they are requesting that side setback.
There are some special conditions in the area in that this is the last house
in a row that was in a platted subdivision. The property directly to the
south is the Head Start property. There is a very large setback from the
Head Start building to Ms. Davis' property. Staff feels that this is much
more in line with what we would like to see by instead of asking for the
variance request to put it in the front where it would be very visible and
would look strikingly different from the rest of the homes as you come
down Wood Avenue, placing it on the side will look more in conformance
with the other structures in the neighborhood.
Andrews: Will the applicant state your name and if there are any comments or
questions.
Davis: My name is Janet Davis. I have a picture of the structure if you would like
to see it. It is just one of those open sided metal carports. I measured
from the side of my house down to the drive through gate is 20'. That
structure is 20' long so if I put it at the exact side of my house it would be
touching the drive through gate so I would need to move it up 3' or 4'.
The width of the property from the side of my house to the property line
where my fence line is is 19'. That structure is 12' wide.
Board of Adjustment
December 20, 2004
Page 16
Andrews: Are there any questions for Ms. Davis?
Olson: Staff does recommend approval of this Variance with just the condition
that no expansion or reconstruction of the existing structure, without
Board of Adjustment approval, shall occur within the required setbacks as
established by the zoning with the exception of that noted herein.
Andrews: Would anyone from the audience like to speak? Hearing none, is there a
motion?
Nickle: I move that we approve BOA 04-1340 with the staff's recommended
condition.
Olszewski: I will second.
Andrews: There is a motion and a second. Is there any further comment? Will you
call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve BOA 04-1340 was
approved by a vote of 7-0-0.
Andrews: Is there anything else to come before the Board of Adjustment? Hearing
none, we will adjourn the Board of Adjustments.
Board of Adjustment
December 20, 2004
Page 17